Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abuelita who wrote (77763)	8/14/2011 12:46:13 PM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 217931

There was a similar shooting recently in California by the BART 'police' that raised the wrath of alot of people , apparently the fellow was of color & shot in the back fatally . There were protests to follow just this last week when the BART authorities pulled the plug on the wireless towers at all their stations in San Francisco out down to the Airports . Trouble is many of these younger patrol officers are often veterans back from Iraq & the wars abroad & are just a little too "gung ho" in their approach to policing tactics . You see them filling up the ranks of all local & state police agencies and setting up road block check points so often now to ostensibly catch DUI violations but is inflaming normally more quiet Hispanic communities now full scale as targeting them . Since Hispanics rapidly approach 60% of the populations in some regions & are a larger part of the prison community this is not a good trend . I guarantee anyone here also to realize there are larger parts of the Bay Area surrounding cities just a stones throw from Silicon Valley including the majority San Fran , you just wouldn't be caught dead walking around at night ....these cities are outright dangerous . Back to BART Transit Authority solution , just shut off the Cell Towers SF cell shutdown: Safety issue, or hint of Orwell? "http://finance.yahoo.com/news/SF-cell-shutdown-Safety-issue-apf-1703550993.html?x=0&.v=6 SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- An illegal, Orwellian violation of free-speech rights? Or just a smart tactic to protect train passengers from rowdy would-be demonstrators during a busy evening commute? The question resonated Saturday in San Francisco and beyond as details emerged of Bay Area Rapid Transit officials' decision to cut off underground cellphone service for a few hours at several stations Thursday. Commuters at stations from downtown to near the city's main airport were affected as BART officials sought to tactically thwart a planned protest over the recent fatal shooting of a 45-year-old man by transit police. Two days later, the move had civil rights and legal experts questioning the agency's move, and drew backlash from one transit board member who was taken aback by the decision. "I'm just shocked that they didn't think about the implications of this. We really don't have the right to be this type of censor," said Lynette Sweet, who serves on BART's board of directors. "In my opinion, we've let the actions of a few people affect everybody. And that's not fair." Similar questions of censorship have arisen in recent days as Britain's government put the idea of curbing social media services on the table in response to several nights of widespread looting and violence in London and other English cities. Police claim that young criminals used Twitter and Blackberry instant messages to coordinate looting sprees in riots. Prime Minister David Cameron said that the government, spy agencies and the communications industry are looking at whether there should be limits on the use of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook or services like BlackBerry Messenger to spread disorder. The suggestions have met with outrage -- with some critics comparing Cameron to the despots ousted during the Arab Spring. In the San Francisco instance, Sweet said BART board members were told by the agency of its decision during the closed portion of its meeting Thursday afternoon, less than three hours before the protest was scheduled to start. "It was almost like an afterthought," Sweet told The Associated Press. "This is a land of free speech and for us to think we can do that shows we've grown well beyond the business of what we're supposed to be doing and that's providing transportation. Not censorship." But there are nuances to consider, including under what conditions, if any, an agency like BART can act to deny the public access to a form of communication -- and essentially decide that a perceived threat to public safety trumps free speech. These situations are largely new ones, of course. A couple of decades ago, during the fax-machine and pay-phone era, the notion of people organizing mass gatherings in real time on wireless devices would have been fantasy. BART Deputy Police Chief Benson Fairow said the issue boiled down to the public's well-being. "It wasn't a decision made lightly. This wasn't about free speech. It was about safety," Fairow told KTVU-TV on Friday. BART spokesman Jim Allison maintained that the cellphone disruptions were legal as the agency owns the property and infrastructure. He added while they didn't need the permission of cellphone carriers to temporarily cut service, they notified them as a courtesy. The decision was made after agency officials saw details about the protest on an organizer's website. He said the agency had extra staff and officers aboard trains during that time for anybody who wanted to report an emergency, as well as courtesy phones on station platforms. "I think the entire argument is that some people think it created an unsafe situation is faulty logic," Allison said. "BART had operated for 35 years without cellphone service and no one ever suggested back then that a lack of it made it difficult to report emergencies and we had the same infrastructure in place." But as in London, BART's tactic drew immediate comparisons to authoritarianism, including acts by the former president of Egypt to squelch protests demanding an end to his rule. Authorities there cut Internet and cellphone services in the country for days earlier this year. He left office shortly thereafter

To: abuelita who wrote (77763)	8/14/2011 2:06:08 PM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217931

my thoughts on the recent british riots are that they are a preview of things to come It is a concern of mine. When I was an activist during the 1970's there were some terrible problems with community relations with the police. I remember opening up some residences in the London Harlesden area that unfortunately were only successful for a couple of years. The paperwork was such that the block of houses were eventually torn down and a freeway runs over the area now. Here is todays photo of the spot 4.bp.blogspot.com Now, back in the 70's there was a troublemaker who lived in the block, but he wasn't black and he owned a Ford Mark II Cortina. I watched a black guy intercepted on the street who also had (annoyingly) a newer Mark II Cortina in better condition and arrested by the police. He was immediately suspected of stealing his car and treated so abominably that I am surprised he didn't become a total anti establishment troublemaker of the worst dimensions. I used to be stopped and roughed up a little by the police in the same place, but usually for things like peeing in the street even though it was late at night. I was frequently searched by the police. One just remembered to remain calm no matter what happened and don't give just cause for worse to happen. All that is supposed to behind us these days though. What I saw of the riots in London reflected good practise by the police, but I am also concerned the whole thing was just a deliberate set up. It's a world wide problem, relatively speaking I see Britain as a decent place to live.